On 11/6/2013 10:52 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
If there is actually "pretty obvious and massively strong support" then
there is not only rough consensus, there is some pretty solid consensus.
There seems to be some common confusion here.
There's a difference between my or your personal belief about a state of
affairs, such as what a group feels, versus the formal mechanism of
assessing it. I merely offered my personal opinion.
What's needed is the formal mechanism of explicitly and formally
engaging in the consensus process that is well-established in the IETF.
This requires a call, it requires processing feedback publicly and
carefully, and it requires an on-the-record assessment of the responses.
And then there's no need to assign a facilitator to track and resolve
issues. We're done.
Possibly, but probably not. We have already seen quite a bit of
critical feedback. Not just from me. There is no record of any of it
getting processed accountably, with respect to the document.
I say that in spite of the fact that some of the changes I suggested did
make it into the current draft. But it was a black box (ie, not public
and not accountable) process.
We're not supposed to work that way.
But the sentiment expressed above is unfortunate I think because it
dismisses dissent and just pay lip service to addressing the concerns
that dissent represents. You're talking about entering into a supposedly
consensus building process with the notion that the decision is already
made.
I am doing no such thing. I said massive support for doing something.
I didn't say I know there's massive support for the current text (though
it won't surprise me if there is that) but I also said there is a
requirement for processing concerns.
And for reference, I'll repeat that there is also the requirement to vet
the current text with legal and human resources experts.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net